JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Another ASCAP Controversy

Bob,

Talk about skirting the issue? HA! You've totally avoided the fact that you've affiliated with BMI and you aren't happy with their service, but you'd rather whine to me and everyone here, than contact them and take it up with them directly.

Ironically, I was the one that suggested the PRO's needed to clean up their act as well. Remember? Oh, that's right.. you never actually READ anything that is written.. you just pick misquotes out and try to support your flip flops.

Many people here know Susan Gibso and have met her at JPF events. I'll see if she gets any PRO royalties for Wide Open Spaces, which is played all the time, since Bob says it doesn't happen to REAL people.

So, lets get this straight again Bob.. you don't thing the PRO's should exist, and that no one in the real world actually gets any money for people playing their songs?

As for why YOU don't get paid.. well, common sense dictates that you need more than 1 artist playing that song for it to have a reasonable chance to show up. On a given night there's probably 5000 bands in the US playing Rolling Stones covers. The fact that they aren't playing Bob Young covers doesn't mean that the Stones don't deserve to profit from their sucess. Same with Susan Gibson. I bet 1000 country bands in the US play Wide Open Spaces every time they perform. But according to you, because Susan wrote a song that lots of people play, she's just a rich scumbag who isn't deserving of her income.. because Bob's not getting paid.. no one else can get paid either.

I gave you 2 firsts hand examples of people I know who regularly get PRO checks for their songs being performed. I believe both of them are ASCAP, so perhaps all this comes down to BMI not doing their job.. that I can't address.. it's something YOU should address directly with them.

Also, since when is there a restricting to what can be played on the radio as it pertains to belonging to a PRO? I've worked in radio and have never heard of anyone caring about someone's PRO affiliation.

Brian

Brian

Well...

You've accused me of many things...

You insinuate things that are not true...

You're pathetic.

You'd rather try to win an argument than speak truthfully and honestly..
That is sad ! I could list all your misquotes and the times you try to cloud what I say...but why bother...

You sound more and more like a sad little man Brian...

Where did I say I was "unhappy" with the service I was getting from BMI...

Where....NOWHERE !

I said I hadn't gotten any checks...
I didn't say that made me unhappy...It doesn't

You never, ever said that the payments were figured on ammount of plays..
So...BMI should (by your template) only be paying those with ALOT of plays....To hell with the Just Plain Folks...
I'm sure the members here will find that enlightening...

So...musicians should be put out of work in places where they might perform songs by JPF members because ASCAP and BMI arent sending enough money to your "friends" that are getting alot of play.

You appear afraid to address the premise you raised about the nite of James Taylor songs...

I'm not surprised...it's an idiotic, undefendable situation...

Apparently you didn't work in major market radio, Brian...

Maybe College radio doesn't have to pay for PRO licenses....
The radio that I've been involved with(that would be major market radio) certainly do and have separate agreements with the different PROs involving different pay schecules and rates etc.

\See....you could learn alot from me !

No flip flops, Junior....You're just confused because you're dealing with a man who(like most people except the completely self-involved and self righteous) will occasionally mis-speak, and then has the audacity to try anc correct a mis-statement.

A snarfling child might call that a "flip-flop", a mature adult will applaud that as being responsible for what you say and admitting an error.

You're not a bad kid...just incredibly short sighted and easily lede.

I, unlike you have had real experience in this arena.

The undeniable fact is that you are supporting a system that has been in place for at least 50 years.
In that 50 years the system you support has collected alot of money from venue owners and apparently not gotten it back to the people they claim to represent.
That we are talking about a few dollars aday...but the fact is that it is not paid at that rate.
Collected annually or semi-annually it's a check for four or eight hundred dollars....
If you're paying BMI and ASCAP...double it !
You don't know how hard it is to write a check like that out of a saloon checkbook !
I do !
You support a system that has a history of not providing $ to the people it claims to represent...

I, by the way, have publishing thru ASCAP as well...

I amvery happy with the way both organizations handle my record and airplay issues...
Those are the reasons I jopined each oprganization..
BMI because I was told that unless I was a member I could not get my songs on the radio..
I signed with ASCAP because I was advised by my label (that has some experience in this area) that it was good to have both affiliations.
After I joined ASCAP, I learned that WGN in Chicago did not like to play ASCAP affiliated material because they had not reached an agreeement with them and were getting beilled about $600.00 per 15 minute segment if ASCAP titles were played.
Your "friend" Alan O'Day will testify to this as he has been a guest more than once on
WGN with my friends Steve King and Johnnie Putman.

My argument is and will continue to be that this is not the time for contracts that appear to only benenfit artists already getting sales and mechanicalss.

If this is indeed about "Just Plain Folks" it should be understood that "Just Plain Folks" that aren't getting much airplay will not benefit at all !

That other "Just Plain Folks" who are working musicians are faced with venue owners who have one more reason to say "our overhead is killing us...sorry...we're gonna have to cut back"

this is a time to remove these idiotic penny ante charges that benefit no "Just Plain Folks" that I know,and hurt many that I do.

But...it's just my opinion...and I'm pretty sure I'm right.

I got 4 e-mails on this....two say I'm badgering you, and two say what the hell is Brians deal ?
It appears that elents of the membership besides me are questioning this deal.

It's a tough business climate right now...this is an impediment that should be removed, not encouraged.

I said in the same breath "where's my money" and "if I got it I wouldn't accept it"

People here know that I am a supporter of the art of songwritingAND that I support the rights of performers.
I think that this situation which you endorse hurts both in very tangible ways.

Every single expense that a clubowner or venue owner incures will be reflected FIRST in budget.
First on thatr list is the entertainment..
It always has been and always will.
That's how things really are, Brian..

Of course, you think that an owner is gonna take time out to attend some cockamamie class to learn why live music is an asset to his business !

I don't know what color the sky is in your world...but it must be beautiful !

I am still waiting for you, who says NO LISTS
intends to get James Taylor paid for that night of James Taylor cover songs you say must be paid for !

I'm not the only one ...

Bob Young

A question I asked before...to some of you like Graham and Mike who are knowledgeable about this stuff...

If I, as an ASCAP and BMI writer, go out and perform a night of my original songs..

Do I have to log them in with anybody ?
Do I have to list (sorry Brian) my own songs ?

Curious

bob

I would like to make a brief point here concerning how ludicrous it is to pay venue royalites based on radio airplay alone.

Bob, Mike, or one of you others who perform regularly, please correct me if I am wrong.

What if there is a song which you are requested to play at least twice a week, but is not currently, nor has it been a top ten hit in the past ten years.

Shouldn't the lady who wrote, "Happy Birthday to You" get a little money for her song?

dawg

For the record, college radio stations do pay PRO license fees, but the rate is much lower than for commercial stations. About half I think.

And all the PROs say you can't be a writer member of more than one PRO at a time. You can be a publisher member of more than one though.

"Happy Birthday to you", written by Mildred and Patty Hill, is ASCAP title #380008955. It currently belongs to a division of Warner Communications and as of 1996 was bringing in $2 million per year in royalties. So if you go on stage in one of those places with a "No ASCAP music here" sign be sure and not sing it to the lady in the front row whose birthday it is.

[This message has been edited by pd (edited 12-17-2003).]

Dawg,

I would imagine the PRO's are well aware that some songs are a lot live that weren't necessarily played as much on the radio. Songs like Happy Birthday, You Never Even Call Me By My Name, and Standing on Shaky Ground are live performance standards, yet they are rarely, if ever, heard on the radio or tv. I'd guess they have figured this in to their formula, but here, I'm conjecturing.

I have a call in to my local ASCAP rep to ask some questions and see what they say concerning these and other issues raised on this thread. Hopefully I'll hear from them and report back today.

I doubt if their answers will change any minds, but at least we can add new fuel to the fire.


All the Best,
Mike

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

That's right PD Jack Kramer music is a BMI company

My affiliation with ASCAP is my own publishing co JimKimisan music

Bob

Bob toward your question.
No you don't have to do a play list of your all originals if you do a "sing only me" night.
They are your songs. Your pro only metres out the dues for the songs you choose to submit on a play list.
It does mean you won't get a cheque for the playing of them frpm your pro, but that is your choise.
Not so with any covers you do and don't submit on a play list.
That means you have made the decision the writer is not going to have anyn say in weather they get paid their dues for you earning a buck by singing their songs.
I find it very hard to believe any live play royalties are metred out on a sytem that is figured by air play of records.
That goes against the entire purpose of a writre's pro.
To make it possible for ANY writer who registers their work to gain fair compensation for others using that work in a commercial venture, as in live play, radio, whatever.
How much airplay, if any at all, does not come itto the figuring with APRA I know because I read it in the rules.
And the fact that there is a little old lady in OHIO who is a full PRO member because I sang one of our collabs in the hole in the wall down here in Esperance suggests it is not the case up there either.
Hope that answers your question Bob.
Now back to read the funnies.
Graham



------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Thanks Cobber !

Bob

With all due respect to Graham who is giving valid information for down under - every time you post it muddies the discussion of how things work in the US.

Bob - ASCAP and BMI would not appreciate your having a song registered to both of them. They would be fighting over who got to collect the royalties on the song.

Do I have to log them in with anybody ?
In the US there is no program of logging them in. The payout is based on the airplay and has nothing to do with the live performance.

Do I have to list (sorry Brian) my own songs ?
Since there is no list, obviously not. However, you should know that the venue would be required to pay the licensing fee for you to play your own songs if the songs are registered with the PRO. An example of when musicians actually paid attention to this - if I remember correctly - there was a huge negotiation prior to The WHO farewell tour over the amount of royalties being collected by the PRO's since the standard agreement for large concert venues is a percentage of ticket sales (a significant sum for that tour). The band was playing their own songs which were registered to one of the PROs. The licensing fee collected was going into the general PRO pool. The royalty payout as always was going to be based on air play at the time (and The Who didn't have any songs high on the charts.) They knew they were only going to see pennies on the dollar for playing their own songs. If memory serves correctly the settlement terms for the tour were not disclosed.

Ya know Marty. There is a saying that down here we are about twenty years behind the States in everything we do.
If that includes our brains going squishy, I don't mind.
Surely you are not suggesting you all just sit there winging about what the situation is up there, and so can't use a few facts from how it does work in a system where it does work, as best the group ethics allow it to at least.
My stuff is muddying the issue for you, skip over it Cobber.
Struth. We all pay our polaticains a bundle to go on overseas fact finding missions.
Here ya get the same thing for free.
Don't expect to learn or maybe do something constructive toward improving the situation though, as really only Ed has come up with anything of value there.
Oh and the bloke who has been doing a bit of delving round the PRO sites PD I think it was.
Bob is a publisher so is entitled to be multi registered as such.
Wheather he can decide which pro he registers his songs with, as a writer, I don't know.
I believe he would have to single regisar them with one or the other.
And logic says he is only entitled to registar them with or the other full stop. As a writer. Not as a multi registared publisher.
Maybe he should ask them and he may even learhn a bit more about this stuff in the doing.
If your pro pays live dues on airplay, and I really do not believe that, you sure have got to do more than winge about it.
Read the stuff your pro sends you for goodness sake.
Presuming you have one (or two)of course.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Graham -

I've found your posts very informative on how its done down under - and I wish we had one PRO only and it accepted live playlists to base live performance royalties on. I know where you're coming from in your posts. Its just that watching the thread I see others taking your answers as if they apply here and unfortunately they don't.

I have read the stuff from the PRO s. I don't belong to one as of yet because I'm the only one playing my songs and as yet do not have measurable air play. When I do I will become part of the system.

And yes they really do base the royalty distribution on air play "or a suitable surrogate" as they say in the literature. There are no live play lists to submit.

And while some think it would be impossible to get folks to submit playlists, I really have to disagree there. And I'm confident what would be submitted would be at least a little more accurate than what is currently used.

The following is a quote from the ASCAP site:
Of course, it would be impractical to monitor all performances in bars, clubs, restaurants and the like .... is paid out to members on the basis of feature performances on radio and all surveyed performances on television.



[This message has been edited by Marty Helly (edited 12-17-2003).]

Now hear this, and before I address your comments Marty.
I just got off the phone to the APRA lady and in that conversation I found out, that while it is mandatory all venues having entertainment must be liceienced to do so, there is no stipulation with any legal standing artists submit a playlist of material used.
It is a case of "do the right thing if you think it's the right thing.
So. Our laws and conditions are really no bettre than yours appear to be.
It is a case of get the bucks in and do nothing real about sending them out to where they belong.
Cover bands as a rule do not submit lists, and quite often it appears songwriters who are lucky not to be born lazy and perform seemingly going by the article in the last APRA newsletter pad their playlists with their own material , probably at the expense of the writer who wrote the covers that got the crowd there anyway.
That said. I must say it took a long time for that factor to be squeezed out of my pro.
The workings are all there, they just got no way of making anybody bar the venues form abiding by them.
Forget about the do the right thing stuff and all that. We are not all in this together when it comes to writers and artists
That said and back to you Marty.
I don't see the point in not making information or thoughts available just because some don't read subject enough to understand the situation.
The ones who want to will read it again until they do understand, or ask.
The ones who don't want to understand, I really don't care if they are confused or not.
I ran out of pity for ignorance a long time ago.
And that said. Given today's sad revelation, I don't know I have a lot left to say on the matter anyhow.
Not that that will stop me mind you.
As long as I believe there is a better mousetrap, I will keep working on the idea.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

I really do understand Bob's cynical (for lack of a better word) thoughts about a lot of the PRO stuff, as I share them. I think he makes a good point that having the PRO gestapo raiding every joint that has live music - IF THE PRO'S DO NOT CHANGE THEIR APPROACH AS BRIAN HAS SUGGESTED - will decrease live music. I understand his feelings about what seems to be corruption with some parts of the PRO system.

But, while I will absolutely continue to listen to and respect what Bob has to say, and while I hope he continues to rail against the stupidity of some of the PRO system, Brian is right on most of his points. The venues should pay. The songwriters are not being greedy in this. The PRO system is far from perfect, and in some ways songwriters are forced into it (and that really is the most evil feeling part about it to me), but the alternative to the PRO system would be for every songwriter to negotiate performance fees with every radio station, hockey arena, etc. etc. that wanted to use their song. The logistics of this, plus the admin expense of this, would be nearly impossible and it would eat up the money you made from the performance, and/or make the fees so great as to make many possible users turn away (or make Congress pass a law taking away your rights because some lobby is bigger than your lobby). Some points:

1) As Western society is currently arranged, if you make a living playing cover songs, you owe your entire ability to make a living to those songs. In fact (gasp!), you owe your ablity to make a living not only to those songs, but to the major record labels and the broadcasting cartels (yes all those guys we love to hate) that play/sell the songs to a wide enough mass of people that you, the cover playing band, have a built-in audience where ever you go (in the genre you are covering). In fact, you the cover playing band are a dependent peripheral industry to the Major labels/broadcasters. The cover playing band is just like the pizza joint, dentist, car wash, etc. that spring up around a GM plant that moves to town. The peripheral businesses can operate because of the workers/money GM provides.

2) Absolutely no offense intended here - I have the upmost respect for anyone that can make a living at music - especially for 30 some years - but it is much easier to make a living playing cover songs than original songs (unless of course you hit the jackpot and have major label backing - which still in most cases takes years of starving).
a) You have to build an audience show by show with original material, versus you have a built-in audience with cover songs.
b) It may take half an hour to learn a cover song, -vs- it could take years of writing hundreds of songs to come up with a song as good as that cover song.
c) If you can't write the songs, it could take months to review original material for your setlist.
d) If you can't write songs, you may be screwed.
e) If you can write songs, can you write them in the genre people want to listen to?
f) Do you have all the right combinations of people in your band to really make a go at original materal? People will listen to lesser bands/performers if they are playing cover songs they know, -vs- they won't listen long to original materal if it is not presented top-notch, or even with the right enthusiasm/dynamic singer, etc.

3) Because of points 1 and 2, songwriters deserve to get paid for people making a living playing their songs. It WOULD be nice if your reference that resulted in a CD sale would get you paid, but again, the ability of a cover song band to make a living is ENTIRELY due to the songs and or Major record labels/broadcasters. Because you don't get paid for your reference doesn't negate the right of the songwriter to get paid, and really you DID get paid for your reference, the bar owner paid you to play it.

4) Songwriters should get paid because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Copyright law is a statutory expression of a basic human right to own and profit from your creations. It's good for all of us if we protect that right. And, if you want to be in the game of songwriting/recording, why should anyone defend your rights to your sound recording if you won't defend their rights to performances? If you want your rights defended, you have to defend the rights of others.

Now, does this mean I think every joint in town that has live music should pay a fee?No, I think small venues (such as the little hole-in-the-wall eating place our songwriters group went to a few years ago) should be exempt or pay a very small fee. I think it is in the best interest of art and of songwriters to have some places that are free or almost free of the fees. And, it is possible to have larger joints pay and smaller joints not. As far as my study goes there is no such thing as "abandonment of copyright" or "use it lose it" as far as a reason to enforce fees on everyone. Those are common law theories and music in the US anyway is not under common law, it is under statutory law. So I have no idea what ASCAP is thinking there. I can write a song today and a joint can play it every day for 30 years. I can walk into that joint 30 years from now and hear it playing and demand a fee or sue them. The law says I can.

And, why is the whole PRO system bogus just because it is not refined enough to catch me playing "Rubber Ducky" at Joes Bar and Grill, and then send the songwriter 5 cents? The cost of getting the system down to where it catches EACH and EVERY performance would eat up much of the fees. I admit, not being able to catch every performance can add to the cynicism that the thing is rigged. But, if you think through what is going on, and the alternatives, for the most part the system catches what is getting played. And mean really, what are the chances that your song is generating enough royality income to overcome adminstrative costs if it is not being played or used in any of the places a PRO tracks? There are things in life where there is a minimum theashhold you have to meet in order for benefits to kick in. Does that make those things unfair?

Anyway, just my thoughts.



[This message has been edited by Liszt Laughing (edited 12-19-2003).]

Liszt...

"the coverplaying band is just like the pizza joint etc. that spring up around the GM plant etc."

No...not really...GM isn't going to the pizza place and saying "you're here because of us, so we want MONEY !"

The cover band is there JUST because of the songs...

I played in cover bands almost all my life..
If it was just about the songs ANYBODY could do it..
It was about wardrobe, attitude, practice, dedication, money invested in equipment, the willingness to travel, taking care of yourself, talking nice to the crowd...a million things BESIDES the songs.

Liszt...a race car driver can't compete unless he has tires on his car....In case you haven't noticed, the tire manufacturers
pay for his tires in exchange for him telling the world what tires he's using so other folks might be induced to buy the same tires.

I don't think my attitude is "cynical"

I think it's a logical look at how things are and should be !

You're promoting the inequities of the system as well...

You're saying "well...here's this little place nobody can check up on so we'll let them slide...but this band is doing real well playing covers in big joints where everybody can see them.So let's make part of the reward for all their hard work (and don't get me started about how much harder it is to cop licks from somebody else than make up your own stuff !)...let's reward them by making them pay every time they work !

No...man...Brians very wrong, and I think you are too.

But that's OK...being wrong is just being wrong...not evil....

I give Graham alot of credit......
He supports the system that I reject, and is man enough to say publicly that upon investigation he finds it is possibly not all it claims to be.

That's what a mensch does !

I see it as a two way street, Liszt.

Your contention is that without the songs the musican is nowhere.
I say that without the musicians, there ain't no songs !

So why should one pay the other ?

And, one more time...if the writer thinks he should be paid for the musicians use of the song..then tell me why the musician who performs the song shouldn't get a cut of the sales ?

If Joe Schmo and Mary Birdface hear me play a song they've never heard before, and want it at their DJ wedding (something that happens a bout a million times a day) and I tell them who it's by,,,,shouldn't I get a cut on the sale of the CD.
And if not....why not ?

If you're gonna say "cos' we can't keep track of that" then you are saying "let's place all this burden on the backs of those that have made themselves visible thru ther hard work !"

That's pathetic !
And unfair !

And I for one will have no part of it !
And I pity those that think that's an equitable situation.

Bob

I think this thread has forced me to seriously think about the status of the Performance Rights Organizations so I'm going to attempt to summarize my thoughts and then move on - unless I can figure out a way to do something constructive about it.

First - I believe songwriters should be compensated for their work, but that it has to be done in a manner that does not place an overly large burden on those using the work. If the fees are so large as to prevent performance from happening, then everyone loses.

Second - There would have to be a single entity collecting license fees for it to possibly be administered in a fair manner and one the users could understand. At least the folks down under and in Belgium have a step up over the US there. With the current system in the US, there are 3 different PROs a user needs a license from and even then there are millions of songs they have not acquired a license for. (This is the situation responsible for the pissing match in the original post where a venue argues it hasn't played ASCAP songs by directing the performers to play original music only.)

Third - if the money is collected, it should go to the writers who's songs are being performed. At least with APRA there is a system for trying to report the information. The ASCAP/BMI/SESAC stance that its just too hard to figure out doesn't fly for me. If they can't pay the money to the people who have earned it, they shouldn't be collecting it.

I must thank Marty and Liszt for ringing in.
I've seen some very valid thoughts coming from everyone. And Graham... what a shocker to find your system wasn't quite what yourself (and many others around you) had thought! ...proving the mess surrounding this topic is not exclusive to the U.S.

There are many of us who thought the direct accountability method used in Australia was a great concept. I still think it is, and I don't see it as impossible at all.
When I think of all the people employed by the PROs who are trying to establish equations and formulas on how to pay a songwriter his/her just dues (via radio play and other assorted concepts of complete inaccuracy) I tend to laugh, (while being completely disgusted at the same time), because it appears the system ONLY serves somebody with a top-40 hit record played on the radio. Exactly what percent of songwriters does this represent? (very small)
I see a direct accountability system as not only possible, but also much simpler, far more understandable, honest, fair... AND as something which would probably eliminate a big bunch of paid employees within any PRO organization.
It would be a matter of numerical entries into a computer system, and quite likely a walk in the park for any computer programer to create such a program. So long as a reasonable price was established for any cover song, I'd go as far to say that most venues would pay *less* money than they currently do. Some would pay more, yet it would be a direct reflection of factual matter. Cover bands normally pull in more customers anyhow, so it works out.
I not only see it all as a possible solution, but the only solution. And it has nothing to do with handing a barowner a bunch of scribbles on a napkin. Most any band or performer knows the covers they perform,(or are prepared to perform) and could readily have a checklist created with numerical song identifiers on them... reporting ONLY cover songs to the bar after the performance, from which the bar could report weekly via electronic tranfser to the PROs. The last I heard, computers handle numbers rather well.
Everyone would be fairly represented, nobody could question a thing, and Willie Nelson would be represented no more or no less than the average JPF member who has a friend playing their song.
I'd even go so far as to suggest that most performers would feel obligated and somewhat *wanting* to properly credit (and thank) a songwriter for works used.
To me, this concept truly reflects the
"we're all in this together" motto we all believe in.
To the contrary, the current system is suspicious at best, and comes off as nothing more than a legal mafia collecting money via thug tactics.
A few more hot pieces of press as the one which started this thread should have the PROs being loved as much as Clear Channel Communications, when in fact the PROs are a good thing, simply in need of a much better system....not to mention palpable accountability.

-gary

Still, if I wrote "happy birthday" and knew it was being played every night at most of the nightspots in the U.S., I'd sure want my PRO collecting from those owners.

The problem, as I see, with fair collection is one that may be made more equitable with technology. I'm just afraid that by the time the technology is in place to ascertain a close estimate, we will have given up the right to do so.

I, also, remember the time when every club had a BMI, and ASCAP sticker in the window. When I owned a club, we paid the fee and didn't really think about it. Sure, it would have been nice not to pay it. It would be nice not to pay a liquor license too.

Why don't the clubs pay for the music and go after the liquor taxes, they're REALLY unfair! Most places in the U.S. the club owner pays a tax when they buy the liquor, then they pay a tax when they sell a drink---where they are taxed on the retail price of the drink---they get taxed on the ice, the mix, the orange juice, and the bartender---not just the price of the liquor. But, do we get chain letters about clubs having to pay the unfair liquor tax? No, they go after the easy target...the musician and his advocate.

I think the system is very unfair to the small songwriter, but guess what? It always will be. Guaranteed. If we change the way it's done now, the small songwriter still won't get anything, but then the big songwriter will get less. And, anyone who thinks this will mean musicians will suddenly start making more money is being unrealistic. The club owners will look for their next victory, and they'll go after the easy target once again Why, for example, shouldn't the musician pay them for playing their venue? The musician makes money by selling their cd's, the club, by presenting the musician to the public, makes it possible for the public to find and buy their cd's. The club helps the musician be successful, why shouldn't the club share in that success? After all, those clubs who don't get paid by the musicians will quit offering music. I can hear the arguments right now, and I can see the musicians lining up to side with the clubs.


Mike

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

Hi Everyone,

I thought I'd address each of Bob's ramblings in one place using his words so he doesn't get confused. I will state that even for Bob, his post is over the top in being offensive. It's one thing for him to call me names, he does that all the time. It's another to suggest that I am being dishonest. In 5.5 years of working to support artists and writers for free, this is perhaps the single most offensive statement anyone has made. I strongly suggest that if Bob feels this way, he should stop coming here and disassociate himself with this organization. I would not personally belong to a group where I believe the leader and founder were liars and making false statements to the membership. I think it says something about Bob's own integrity if he stays here while believing I am being untruthful and dishonest. Making that statement is VERY different from saying someone is wrong. His choice of words were not lost on me.

Brian

Here's my response:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

Well...

You've accused me of many things...

You insinuate things that are not true...

You're pathetic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Actually Bob, I addressed specific things you've said with specific answers. As for your personal attack comments, it's the same old same old from you.. when you're losing an argument, you go into attack mode.. YAWN).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

You'd rather try to win an argument than speak truthfully and honestly..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: So expecting Venues to pay for the right to use someone else's music is dishonest? Really? To expect YOU to contact and complain directly to your PRO is untruthful? Really? For me to supply 3 examples of people I personally know who make significant income from their PRO isn't being honest? Really?)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

That is sad ! I could list all your misquotes and the times you try to cloud what I say...but why bother...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: If there are misquotes, they are here for everyone to see. Nothing is being hidden from anyone right Bob? That is except for people who don't actually read it but act is if they have.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

You sound more and more like a sad little man Brian...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Well, I admit that wasting time with an old "curmudgeon" (your preferred word to describe yourself remember?) is a bit sad..)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

Where did I say I was "unhappy" with the service I was getting from BMI...

Where....NOWHERE !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Exact Quotes from Bob Young:

Example #1:

"What a bunch of crap ! When I was a young man playing joints in the midwest, EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY that had a joint that had music paid a minimal fee to BMI and ASCAP. Period ! they got a little sticker that went on the door or on the wall someplace and that was it. In all my years of performing in joints from the mid 60' to the early 80's I never heard of a problem. Now, it's a big deal. Tell the club owners to pay the few bucks and shut up ! It's called "The price of doing business" Life is so friggin' simple until somebody decides it isn't. Radio stations pay licensing fees...it's "the price of doing business" Club owners can be a greedy lot sometimes!" -Bob Young

Brian Replies: Bob started off on the right track here. But of course he later flip-flops his position 180 degrees to the opposite.

"I think it should be clear that since I don't feel the songwriter is entitled to any piece of a live performance that I'm referring to ALL venues" -Bob Young

Brian Replies: See what I mean?

Example #2:

"I've thought about it a bit, and I have come up with some notions that I think will probably piss off just about everybody!" -Bob Young

Brian Replies: Bob obviously is only trying to stir up people and piss them off. That's fine, and it's his usual MO. However, he's taken that to a different level when questioning someone's honesty. If he things I am dishonest, I strongly suggest he go elsewhere. I take great offense from someone intentionally saying ANYTHING he can to piss people off simply because he gets off on it. We normally delete these types on the boards immediately. Sounds like Bob's time has come.

Example #3:

"My song "A Woman Like Me" has been in Nan Masons act for 10 years. It is published thru Jack Kramer Music, a BMI publishing company. Nan probably does 100 dates a year...she is a cabaret singer and works all over the country. I'm sure she has worked many places licensed by BMI. How come I've never gotten any $ The fact is, that I would find it immoral and wrong to receive any money for the public performance of my song, but nevertheless, the system you encourage is in place and has been in place for as long as I've been in the business." -Bob Young

(Brian Replies: First Bob suggested that the PRO's fees were part of business and should be paid. Then, when his position flip flopped against PRO's collecting these fees entirely (and how people expecting these dollars to be paid are greedy, he posts his own statement where he demonstrates the system doesn't work because he hasn't gotten paid. Then he goes on to state that he believes that if he HAD gotten paid by the PRO (who's job it is to collect these fees) that it would be immoral and wrong. So, it seemed reasonable for me to take this as Bob being dissatisfied with what the PRO's do. If that wasn't accurate, and he LOVES what the PRO's do, and how they do it, the entire tone of his posts have led reasonable people to think otherwise.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

I said I hadn't gotten any checks...
I didn't say that made me unhappy...It doesn't

You never, ever said that the payments were figured on amount of plays..
So...BMI should (by your template) only be paying those with ALOT of plays....To hell with the Just Plain Folks...I'm sure the members here will find that enlightening...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Throughout this post, I have said 2 things:

1. There should be a blanket license fee (the fairest easiest and actual system in place is to have the venues pay it). (Something Bob agreed with in his first post).

2. There should be a fair and accurate system to distribute those fees.

I think those 2 points are simple and cover everyone getting their fair share. I've also stated that if you feel your personal PRO isn't doing the job of getting you money you are owed with their current system, you should be discussing it directly with them. How much more clear can it be?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

So...musicians should be put out of work in places where they might perform songs by JPF members because ASCAP and BMI arent sending enough money to your "friends" that are getting alot of play.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: I stated what I believed above. This comment by you is simple hollow editorializing by you. You ignored the posted facts, and created something negative that was never said or suggested).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

You appear afraid to address the premise you raised about the nite of James Taylor songs...

I'm not surprised...it's an idiotic, undefendable situation...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: I replied several times to that exact question. Over and over. It was clear in the initial post as well. I suggested that just as Taylor Guitar should be compensated for what they added to the performance, so should James Taylor if you perform his song all night. The method to buy the guitar is usually through retail sales (though there are all sorts of ways to get a guitar, most people buy one). The method for James Taylor to get compensated is via the blanket license fee that must be paid by the venue to the PRO. I am not sure how many times over and over again I can say that. This is the 4th I think.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

Apparently you didn't work in major market radio, Brian...

Maybe College radio doesn't have to pay for PRO licenses....
The radio that I've been involved with(that would be major market radio) certainly do and have separate agreements with the different PROs involving different pay schecules and rates etc.

See....you could learn alot from me !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Actually Bob, though I did work for college radio, I wasn't even thinking of that. I know our college station didn't track if music was on a PRO. I was referring to working at WZPL in Indianapolis, which was the #1 Station in the market when I was there. We got music in daily and lots of things went into deciding such as phone surveys, charts, promotional plans, various forms of legal payola (like appearances, free concert tickets, free CD's, all things ironically I have been fighting to have made illegal without proper reporting by radio, but that's another long topic). At no point was a question ever asked "are they affiliated with a PRO?" If it was supposed to be required, then many stations who have played a lot of artists who I personally know AREN'T associated with a PRO have made mistakes. This is possible, but it's "rule" I think many people are unfamiliar with. That's why I pointed it out.. it was new to me. You made the claim. Let's see the facts to support it? (Or it is possible it either changed or you're simple wrong Bob?) I'll cut you a break and NOT call you a liar or dishonest if you're wrong. So, if I can learn a lot from you, please teach me the actual rule that states a writer of a song must be aligned with a PRO to get airplay. Post it here please.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

No flip flops, Junior....You're just confused because you're dealing with a man who(like most people except the completely self-involved and self righteous) will occasionally mis-speak, and then has the audacity to try anc correct a mis-statement.

A snarfling child might call that a "flip-flop", a mature adult will applaud that as being responsible for what you say and admitting an error.

You're not a bad kid...just incredibly short sighted and easily lede.

I, unlike you have had real experience in this arena.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian replies: Well, I posted a pretty dramatic flip flop on your part where you suggested venues should pay the money, and then spent the rest of the postings saying that collecting the fee was morally wrong. That's about as big a flip flop that I've seen you ever do. It's quoted above in case you need to read it again. Not sure why I am considered short sighted because you flip flopped? Whether you did or didn't, it would have anything to do with me in the first place right? But I guess you couldn't resist another attempt to insult me out of context.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

The undeniable fact is that you are supporting a system that has been in place for at least 50 years. In that 50 years the system you support has collected alot of money from venue owners and apparently not gotten it back to the people they claim to represent.
That we are talking about a few dollars aday...but the fact is that it is not paid at that rate.
Collected annually or semi-annually it's a check for four or eight hundred dollars....
If you're paying BMI and ASCAP...double it ! You don't know how hard it is to write a check like that out of a saloon checkbook ! I do !You support a system that has a history of not providing $ to the people it claims to represent...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Aside from the fact that you started off supporting the same system, after 50 years of experience with it (I'm not as old as you Bob), and within a couple days of having that belief formed over all those years, flip flopped it, this has nothing to do with any of my arguments except to support my statements that the system should be fair and if it isn't those who assigned their rights to those PRO's should take it up with them directly. If there was never a single writer who ever got a dime of that money, it still wouldn't change the fact that the fee has a right to exist, it would simply indicate that the PRO's who the owners of those songs (i.e., the songwriters and publishers based on our system) assigned their legal rights, weren't doing their job. It would be the same as a retail store paying for goods from a wholesale supplier, but that wholesale supplier not properly paying for the original goods. It doesn't releases the retailer from responsibility of payment, it simply shows that the original suppliers should deal with and fix the problems with the wholesaler, OR find a different one. Your arguments against me only solidify my point and never weaken it. Venues should pay the blanket license fees. PRO's should make sure the right people get the money. Very straightforward and simple and I've never varied from it.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

I, by the way, have publishing thru ASCAP as well... I amvery happy with the way both organizations handle my record and airplay issues... Those are the reasons I jopined each oprganization.. BMI because I was told that unless I was a member I could not get my songs on the radio..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: That's all well and fine. Have you told your PRO's that you think collecting from venues is greedy and wrong? I think it's also interesting that you seem comfortable with them collecting from Radio Stations for using songs, but not for collecting from Venues for the same thing? It's an illogical double standard. You choose to give up potential venue income, that's fine. What if someone else feels Radio income should be given up? We are seeing this type of idea on the web (something we have publicly been against) where net broadcasters make writers sign agreements to not be paid for performances on net radio broadcasts. It's really the same concept being moved over to the net world which is where most music will be broadcast in the future, until total and directly in demand programming becomes the norm. So, you'd do away with the license fees to venues, but keep the money they collect from radio. If radio didn't have to pay those fees, they could run less advertising and play more artists. It's the same argument you make about venues booking less artists because they have to pay a licensing fee.

So, my question to you: Why is it reasonable to collect from Radio for airplay performances, but not from Venues for Live Performances? In both cases, there are artists playing those songs, one on a recording (or sometimes live on the radio) and the other live. Why do venues get a pass, but Radio doesn't? If it's because of the system of determining who gets paid, keep in mind it's the same system. Just as they determined it worked best to use a survey type system to determine pay for radio play, they determined that same system best represented what cover songs were being played. So why is one okay and the other wrong?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

I signed with ASCAP because I was advised by my label (that has some experience in this area) that it was good to have both affiliations. After I joined ASCAP, I learned that WGN in Chicago did not like to play ASCAP affiliated material because they had not reached an agreeement with them and were getting beilled about $600.00 per 15 minute segment if ASCAP titles were played. Your "friend" Alan O'Day will testify to this as he has been a guest more than once on WGN with my friends Steve King and Johnnie Putman.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian replies: That's interesting, but I am not sure what the point is? It should be clearly stated that a writer can't simultaneously be represented for the same work by both PRO's. I don't think you were saying it, but from the responses, it's clear there is some confusion. You CAN have songs on both (or more than both) PRO's and you can have a publishing company run by you on both, but they can't represent the same writer's interests in 1 song on both. A song CAN have a BMI, ASCAP and SESAC (or any combination) writer appear on it, but can only be affiliated with 1 PRO at a time for each individual writer for that song.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

My argument is and will continue to be that this is not the time for contracts that appear to only benenfit artists already getting sales and mechanicalss.

If this is indeed about "Just Plain Folks" it should be understood that "Just Plain Folks" that aren't getting much airplay will not benefit at all !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: The demographic make-up of JPF closely represents the overall industry statistics. We have app. 3-5% of our members involved with the major and indie label systems, and 95-97% of our members are independent of all labels. Of that, a portion consider themselves hobby only and many consider themselves active grassroots indie artists. We've been on the forefront of fighting for airplay fairness for our members. But this still has zero connection to venues and them paying to use music. It's 2 separate issues that have no relevance. PRO's should pay the money they collect to their members in a fair, above board system. I've always supported that. People profiting from music, should pay the creators (or owners, if the creators have sold or given their rights to someone else) for that use. It's really simple. Arguing that one injustice makes another injustice okay is what illegal file sharers try to do. They say since labels screw artists, that the fact that they steal music is okay. It's ludicrous. (And I don't mean the Rap artist).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

That other "Just Plain Folks" who are working musicians are faced with venue owners who have one more reason to say "our overhead is killing us...sorry...we're gonna have to cut back"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: What difference does it make what bogus excuse a venue uses to not pay musicians? We both know that 1.91 per day is so tiny to the average venue is has no real business impact over the course of the year and certainly doesn't factor in legitimately to whether a venue can afford to book live music year round. If a venue is hanging on by less than the price of a cup of coffee or a fraction of the cost of a mix drink per day, music and booking live artists or not will make no difference to their solvency. If a radio station says they can't afford their license, should we give them a pass too? Who else gets a pass? If a venue doesn't want to book live performers, they'll come up with plenty of excuses or no excuse at all. It's a business decision. Few business people would make an honest assessment that they can't make more in profit with live music than 1.91 per day. It's only the hothead's who usually create a stink. And it rarely has as much to do with the money, as their egos.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

this is a time to remove these idiotic penny ante charges that benefit no "Just Plain Folks" that I know,and hurt many that I do.

But...it's just my opinion...and I'm pretty sure I'm right.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Having income going into the organizations that you've chosen to pay you sounds like a good thing for all writers, which we're a part of. It comes down to what is right and what is fair. I think it's both to pay writers if you are voluntarily choosing to use their work to benefit your work. Someone (maybe you) used the example of a plumber using a tool. They paid for that tool. Our government decided that the best way to collect for the use of music wasn't to individually sell a license for each song to each buyer, but instead have a simple system of a blanket fee. If you don't like this system, you can choose not to join a PRO. You can also work to change the laws. But for hundreds of thousands of writers who have affiliated with PRO's, they've chosen to work with the system. If they are unhappy, I assure you that if all of them quit their PRO's tomorrow if they didn't change, they would. They'd have no other choice. But I don't see that happening. I do think that new technologies will take a lot of the guesswork out of the system and hopefully these types of arguments won't be needed. But whether the payout system is flawed or perfect, it STILL doesn't change the fact that venues should pay the fees OR they can choose NOT to use the music. They have that option.. it's all their choice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

I got 4 e-mails on this....two say I'm badgering you, and two say what the hell is Brians deal? It appears that elents of the membership besides me are questioning this deal. It's a tough business climate right now...this is an impediment that should be removed, not encouraged. I said in the same breath "where's my money" and "if I got it I wouldn't accept it" People here know that I am a supporter of the art of songwritingAND that I support the rights of performers. I think that this situation which you endorse hurts both in very tangible ways.

Every single expense that a clubowner or venue owner incures will be reflected FIRST in budget. First on thatr list is the entertainment.. It always has been and always will. That's how things really are, Brian..

Of course, you think that an owner is gonna take time out to attend some cockamamie class to learn why live music is an asset to his business !

I don't know what color the sky is in your world...but it must be beautiful !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: If a business makes a determination that having live music won't be profitable for them, then they should make that decision and they regularly do. It's part of being professional. I'd love to sit down and hear from venue owners who can financially show me where $1.91 per day would sway that decision one way or another. If a business investor came to me and said he was operating on margins that close to disaster, I'd say don't go into business. On the other hand, I'd suggest that if they wanted to use live music, they should learn how to maximize their profits from that. Business people actually DO educate themselves on what makes money and how to make money. Are there a lot of bad business people in the world who don't want to learn or can't? Yup. That's why 90% of businesses ultimately fail. You have to ask yourself, why can 1 bar survive in the same location than another couldn't? It happens all the time. Arguing that because some bar owners are bad business people doesn't mean they get their tablecloths and neon bar signs and use of music for free. Smart business people maximize their profits. Perhaps if those who are confused we privy to how successful music venues use music to maximize their traffic and profits, perhaps more of them would do well. But whether they want the help or not, it doesn't mean they should get a free ride. Free help yes. Free ride no.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

I am still waiting for you, who says NO LISTS
intends to get James Taylor paid for that night of James Taylor cover songs you say must be paid for !

I'm not the only one ...

Bob Young
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: For the 5th time: James gets paid via the blanket license fee paid by the venue. Just like he always has. Without the venue paying the fee, he never gets paid anything. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.) I am against lists. The blanket license removes the need for it. Ironically, I thought that was the 1 thing we both agreed on. Lists would be impossible to keep track of and totally eliminate the point of having a blanket fee. Perhaps one day when technology can accurately track use on a song by song basis, then the blanket fees will no longer be used. Right now we are no where near that point.

Brian

Yes, GM and other top of the food chain industries such as sports teams, etc. are demanding money from the pizza joint. They do it through the politicians who tax them or tax them at a much lesser rate than the GM plant and then siphon the money in some form back to GM (and I am using GM as an example because they are big, not because I think they are necessarily evil or I know of any wrongdoing)



I absolutely agree with you. I TOTALLY understand what it takes to make a living at music, and like I said, I have the upmost respect for you for being able to do it. But, for a cover song band, again I say that the whole thing is possible, the framework so to speak, of your being able to make a living, comes from the songs and the major label system that pushes them. It just like being a computer programmer. I did not design the computer. Someone else did and they are reaping their just benefits for doing so. Now, can anyone just walk in and use that computer? NO. It takes some hard work, skill, dedication, etc. to make a living using that computer. And for anyone making a living at music and the challenges that presents, I am even more impressed by you. But, the computer programmer would not be able to make a living without the computer. The whole thing starts with that and is not possible without it.



True again. But really, how much does a songwriter have to gain by your "endorsement"? The race car driver is in front of millions of people. You are playing mostly in front of 1000 or less people a night. If you do that every night of the year, that is 365,000 people. Again, quite impressive for an independant musician. *MAYBE* (and I'm being generous) out of that 50 people would hear a song and go out and buy the CD with it (remember I am talking cover songs). So 50 times 8 cents (which will further be split amongst who know how many) is $4.00. Over the course of a year. If you played in front of that many people over a year, you and the venue should have made at least $10 bucks a head. So, 3.6 million dollars. Again, possible because of the songs. If you played a set list with 30 cover songs in it, thats $120,000 a song. If you even give the songwriter 1 percent of that, that is $1200. So, the performance fees are much more valuable than your "endorsement" (by playing the song) that hopes someone buys a CD with the song on it.



I said for lack of a better word...



I'd be promoting a greater injustice if I didn't support songwriter's rights to collect performance fees.



Really good point. It can be a lot of work to correctly cop a lick from someone. But, I'd say for the most part it is even harder work to write something original that everyone wants to cop.



No, because A) You have already been compensated by being able to make a living using that song. B) It's in your best interest, even though you think you have nothing to gain, to promote art in general because there maybe someone asking somebody about YOUR song somewhere, and that's a good thing for you.

Again, I say that a cover song playing band depends on the songs/Major labels for the ability to make a living, and if that results in some "free advertising", that is just part of the deal. Just like a bar that plays the COLTS game on TV. The COLTS banners they hang up on game day give the COLTS "free" advertising, but the atmosphere they help create makes the bar more money.

Really, I think if you look at what people have said, they support your positions more than you think. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII do not want to join a PRO, because for one I don't think I have much to gain by it, for two it feels like I'm forced into a system I don't necessarily like. I think a lot of "under the major label radar" songwriters would feel that way (and you are doing much more with your talents than I am - to your eternal credit). But, that doesn't mean I am not going to support people's rights to join and to have venues pay fees, because I support the underlying rights of a songwriter to performance fees. And to SR rights and other PA rights.

Gary. I knew all along our system wasn't perfect, and yes, it was a little dissapoining to find out after all this time, it is even less perfect that I thought.
Never mind.
Where I had stopped putting my songs I do live in the returns because I was worried about the musos I use to back me getting slapped for not complying, I can now do it at will, and probably sing more to make up for lost time, and only use backing tracks on the ones I cna't just tell them what to play for me to float along to.
One thing about being in a pro, even knowing it isn't perfect, a person can lobby them a bit more effectivly, and given they send the yearly newsletter out, a person is aware of what is going on.
And APRA do have competition, and good paying ones at that, and members are also notified when these are happening.
Your pros may well have something similar.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

I am trying to figure out if it would be worth pursuing the accurate tracking of live performance music. Total PRO license fees collected in the US are about $1 Billion per year, with BMI and ASCAP about evenly split. Does anybody know approximately how much of that $1B is from unmonitored licensees? That is, from the kind of establishments we have been discussing here. Would a PRO tell me if I asked?

If the distribution of songs in live performance is noticably different from what gets played on the radio, TV, movies, etc (as we all all suspecting is the case), it might be in somebody's interest to get it more accurately reported.

And CISCO you made some really good points. Maybe it would not be that expensive to have a direct accountable system. It sure would eliminate the "it's rigged" feeling. I dunno though if people would be willing to go to the Nth degree to catch every play. I think the cost of that would outwiegh the benefits many times. I still think that trying to get the system down to catching every play would counter-productive. Eliminating the "it's rigged feeling" amongst songwriters probably could go a long way with education about the PRO system and a cost/benefit analysis of getting the system down to catching every play. It ain't perfect, but I don't know if making it perfect is cost effective.

But still you made some good points.

[This message has been edited by Liszt Laughing (edited 12-18-2003).]

This post is sure getting the thinking cap going.
Above and beyond, and sometimes amid the personality clashes waging in the doing, a lot of good points for consideration are emerging.
Bob and I are on opposite ends in this issue, but most of his comments have been enlightening and thought provoking.
Toward the point of being or not being a pro member, I say, anybody who has ever written a song should belong to a pro.
yeah to do so it takes that song being sung in public or recorded commercially.
Now that isn't hard to do even if you aren't a performer.
Do what I did. Get up at an open mike, or even at the local karaoke bar and do it.
If you sing real bad tell a good joke first though.
Preferably about a bad singer who wrote pretty and wanted to join a prom so had to sing the song in public.
Buying drinks for the house would maybe help too.
If yo are a member of a pro, you have a better chance to lobby that pro for a bettre deal for all.
One voice does make a differance provided it speaks out in the right places.
In the reading down, I see the comment by Brian that it may be Bob's time on the forum.
If this was to hapen, I for one would be very dissapointed as Bob is a real giving bloke to this community.
Even before he started his Looee looee theory lessons on the education and theory forum, he has guided a lot of us along the way.
Is a really great critic. Straight off the shoulder, and for life ofm me I can't figure.
We have had way messier barneys in this formum and survived.
It is quite common in debate that voices get raised and sometimes thought gets sidetracked and even degenerates to name calling.
That is why in most effective debates there is always an adudicator, and that adudicator takes no part in the debate other than to tell folks when they are out of line and to button up or leave the room.
We don't have that facility here, so let's all ride over that and try to keep it where it is about.
I see this post has possabilities of accieveing something, and maybe without some of the "Get the dander up' stuff, that achivement would be less.
Graham



------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

ya, i'd miss bob too...based on past debates, i thought the color in the debates was just the way you guys showed your love for each other I didn't think it was deadly serious...

Yeah me and a lot of others he has helped out in many ways too.
He is being quiet right now, and hiss looee looee lessons hasn't moved since the last gob full we gave him the other day.
I better give him an e-mail to make sure the old fellow is okay. He is not a well man in spite of his sass.
On lyrics 2 at least there would be few who could claim to have contributed to as many's writing in the time he has been with us.
And now with his support of and contribution to the theory forum I want to see a lot more of him at least.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Amen to all said Graham...particularly that regarding Bob.

As for myself, I'm in very similar shoes as another member (I believe it was Bluepoet) who suggested to be a late-bloomer of sorts.
It's only now that I'm actually considering affiliation with a PRO, yet I'm in no hurry considering a lot of what I'm seeing about them.
I'm always drawn to the "think tank" atmosphere. Whether or not we can make a difference in a huge way, we may make a difference amongst ourselves. It's a start.
I can easily see how the direct-accountability suggestion could potentially extreme. As has been suggested, it would be wise to ask what percentage of royalty funds comes from venues in the first place to help decide whether it matters.
Also, I would agree that many venues should be exempt completely, simply due to their size, type of performances, and frequency of performances. As well, I feel open mics should be exempt. If Willie Nelson is concerned about being paid for the first-time a brave and daring singer takes the stage by using one of Willie's songs, then Willie has likely forgotten what it was like for himself in the beginning.
The more you discuss details, the better a blanket fee appears to be....strictly due to ease. Yet, there is so much injustice and abuse to that method, and so many people going unnoticed that it seems a crime. As well it seems to be contradictory to the entire concept of being "represented".
Pardon me if another post pops up duplicating some of these thoughts. It appears I've lost one in cyberspace somehow. Not sure what happened.

-gary

Bob Young and I are pretty much diametrically opposed politically and have had some serious "prayer meetings" on different subjects. He is also one of the best, most loyal people I know and I feel priviledged to call him friend.

His participation in the discussions on this board can become passionate, because Bob has a passion for music and for life. He makes no claim at omnipitance and has on several occasions admitted he was wrong. (as has every other male who has been married a while).

I will give Brian the same credit for being passionate about music and particularly this site.

I do detest the "Al de Trolio tactic" of cut-and-pasting selected portions of an opponents argument and then answering them point by point, only on those specific issues which make your argument look good. It is quite unnecessary when the entire thread is still up and visible. This provides an advantage akin to a boxing match where one fighter is drugged.

To use such a tactic and ban the opponent borders on abusive, to my thinking.

Bob will be greatly missed on these boards and I hope Brian reconsiders his hasty and heated decision.

dawg

Hoping this can be straightened out....
I Love this board...and what Brian provides for us here.....and I also...care what happens to Bob. I respect him very much.... although we probably stand at opposite poles on many issues. I'm starting to read the chord posts....over at Theory..trying to grasp what you guys are saying...and would really hate to have them stopped.

Hoping this can be worked out.....
Kaley

I agree... I think Bob would be missed alot.
Back when him and I got into personal attacks regarding the war issue... I got over it and actually respected most of his arguments.. He's probably one of the most interesting folks on here and I really look forward to reading his posts..
Now I don't think he really threatened anybody personally...
I think he only threatens their EGOS...

DAvid

Just in form a gig and unwinding doing the e-mails and seeing how the pot boils in here.
I don't see any confirmation Bob has been booted, and I haven't heard anything re it frob bob himself.
He's a begger to get to answer an e-mail sometimes, and I e-mailed him today to see if he was okay which I hope is the case as I promised him my heart and I need it for at least another week as I got the singer at the gig sold on at least one of my songs tonight, and she does her APRA playlists religiously so I may have something to leave the trime yet.
And she is so cute, and one of our very up and coming movie stars to boot.
So is it fact or not that Bob has been expelled?
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

This whole thing of discussion has gone on too long. It reminds me of discussions on the Folk Alliance Boards some months ago (and some months prior to that and so forth, it is periodic). The Folk Alliance has been strategizing on this for at least a decade and is still in the process of coming up with a policy to deal with this. They have decided to deal with the costs to venues first and the separate issue of the negligible payments to writers in our genre, second. The ONLY way to get what we want is to DECIDE what it is EXACTLY that we want, get some money and political backing for it, and LOBBY for it. NSAI now has a songwriters bipartisan caucus of congressman in the House of Representatives, supporting them on downloading and tax issues. The fees to PRO's are a TAX issue, folks, even if it is not imposed by congress but by International Treaty law, Custom, and Court
Decisions.

Unfortunately, in the folk world, many, if not most venues are house concerts and non-profit coffeehouses. that do not make profits on high margin liquor, beer, wine, and overpriced coffee. They are done as public service, hobbies, and fundraisers for either other causes or their own continued existence. The fees to PRO's from these should really be as nominal and easily managable as possible. (Yes, house concert operators DO get chased and asked for out of line fees. One friend of mine sent the letter back saying she was deceased and has since stopped doing HC's, one less source of income for touring musicians)

Someone has got to get together and get a lobbying organization going or otherwise OTHER people will lobby for things that are not necessarily in our interests.

Stop this incessant and increasingly acrimonious banter as soon as possible and get together, for if we do not stand together, surely things will fall apart.

Well I believe that to be absolute bulldust Pom.
Sorry, I can't remember your full title and ya can't see it with a subject so long.
Now that I do hate.
My voice, and my voice alone was enough to get first our States, then to the best of my knowledge all other state liqour laws changed. and monday I go to the memorial service for the man who had the power to listen and did then acted.
And I go not because I believe in following every funeral cart to the grave yard. I go because he was a man of honour, and to honour in both life and death.
You don't need money. You don't need some "lets make some waves but don't let's part the water" commitee.
You need a belief in your cause and yourself and gonads enough to fight for that cause at every given opportunity.
And make a few opportunities to do so to boot.
We are dicussing a subject here Cobber.
we have varied views, and some of our views have varied some since we started the thread.
I really don't care how long it takes before we run out of thought we want to put forward on the subject.
I for one have learend quite a bit about the subject.
It really doesn't mattre how long it goes on as it doesn't interfeer with anythoing else on the forms no matter if it is a hundred pages long.
It is about an aspect of the indutry a lot of us don't know a lot about, and a lot of us ar happy about the little we do know about it.
Isn't that the sort of thing that begs a deep debate?
Now if Red's latest post goes that far I will really worry
Graham



------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

[This message has been edited by Graham (edited 12-19-2003).]

I FULLY agree that a healthy debate and discussion and revelation of facts and laws is positive, but some of the acrimony seemingly (at least in my mind) displayed here is not. Maybe there should be a separate board set-up for discussion of PRO issues here at JPFolks (or it could be part of the industry or mentor boards), with some greater mentor input from mentors that JPFolks has within the industry.(just an idea!). My apologies for any hostility that might have appeared in my words or tone, that was never my intent. The posting of links to PRO policies has been VERY positive for increasing understanding within the community. However, at some point, we need to move beyond what we are doing now, is all I am saying.

No hostility seen in it Pom.
But what is the point of putting it elsewhere?
I would think the General forum has more chance of being seen than most, and takes up the same space..
Let's face it. The boss put it here after all.
He pays the bills and does the works, so is his decision where anything belongs.
I only know words you can sing, or would want to, and not going to bother looking up your ten dollar ones.
If you meant the original subject wandered some, and some of the comments are directed at a person, rather than the subject. Yep That happens from time to time.
No big deal. The thinkers among us will sift the usefull and relevent from the less so I am sure.
Gee I hope they tell me what the find out.
Forgot to mention. I do see we are moving along Pom. Slowly maybe but moving.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

[This message has been edited by Graham (edited 12-19-2003).]

Toward the Has Bob been banned thing JPFers. I aske the boss and he tells me, "No. Bob has not been banned".
Bob tells me he still can't get in so I don't know what is cooking.
I do know the same thing happened to me once then righted itself for goodness knows what reason.
Dang computers.
Now. That made me do a bit more thinking and this is what I thunk.
Could and would any of the ASCAP and BMI people out there who do perform their own material live and have never submited a play list, ask via e-mail or phone if they can actually do so, and will they get anything out of it.
Also of course any who do already do it would help this string by saying so.
Debating with what you thibk is the right amunition is nowhere as effective as using what you know to be full rounds.
I found out stuff about my PRO by doing jsut that so we can all do it.
Nothing but the facts Ma'am is the way to go.
Unless it is a question toward that end, or stated to be only an opinion on the situation.
Graham



------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Hey..

Thanks everybody...

Brian...

I did go too far...

I apologize...

I should never let these things get personal..

that's wrong headed and silly..
I expect others to be better than that.. I should be better than that too.

I wasn't ignoring everybody..I wasn't able to get on to the site for a couple of days...I dunno some kind of techno-glitch...

I would miss all of you terribly...

And Graham !!

this old guy is feeling fine !!
don't get that shovel out yet !

My wife yelled at me too....


Sorry Brian.....
And everybody else too....
I'll continue to be cranky sometimes, I guess....but no more personal stuff...
Ain't gonna do it..

Happy Holidays !!!

Bob

[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 12-21-2003).]

Graham's point is a good one. We can rant and rave and envisage best-case scenarios as much as we like, but without some hard facts they won't mean anything.

Let's apply a little "kaisen", one of whose principles is "genchi genbutsu" the art of continual improvement. A fundamental part of this is gathering the infomation from the frontline.

I'll try nd get some details from my PRO, Sabam, for the purposes of comparison.

Incidentally, if a folk group is already considering this, they should perhaps extend their work to other similar organisations.

Michael


------------------
Michael Leahy
The Accidental Lyricist
http://michael-leahy.indiegroup.com

Thanks Michael. I am sure it wil help us all wnow how our individual bodies work, and so help us figure if we can in fact make a differance to one or any of them.
And good to see you got the whatever it was bug out of things Bob and back in here.
I for one am looking forward to you inching through those lessons of yours over on theory forum.
I believe it has already helped me see something I think will probably be included as the series progresses.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Seems to me, no matter what side of this debate, or what PRO we belong to, the majority are not too stoked at PROs in general.
Now wrap your eyballs around this one concerning my PRO APRA.
Tonight on Channel seven curent affairs it wsa revealed APRA is stopping parents etc from videoing the kids school pantomines without them applying for a licience to do so before hand because the video will most probably have sound recordings of the music used, which schools etc must get a permit to use in their events before hand anyway.
Now how a body supposedly there to represent the writers can't get a system where artists performing the work of opthers in public to pay their dues, can jump on Mum and Dad for collecting memmorbilia of kids that may or may not survive to enjoy them as adults, is totally beyond me.
Thought I would drop this new bit for down here at least on you guys.
If you don't have the pros alresady doing this trick up there maybe you bettre watch out for it..
Yeesh. as if any audio coming out of your average vidio taken in a school hall is ever likely to be played by any but the dotting parent or other close family member anyway.
Regards.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Graham,
Up until now I would have guessed such a thing likely to happen only in the U.S.
I find it abhorant...and completely beyond ridiculous. School plays being subjected to PRO collections? Yikes!

In regards to direct questions to ask your respective PRO representatives... It might be effective to develop a list of common questions, so's to compare answers later. Just a thought.

-gary

Could be Gary.
My thoughts though are, you wonder about somethng, go ask the releveant body then passit it on anywhere you think it may help toward a better deal for all .
Have started a post o this subjuect on MP3.cm.au too.
Is getting plenty of reads but nobody is saying anything yet.
Also contacted the TV station that ran the show with some thoughts on going a bit further than they have so far.
Have a Good Christmas Guys.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

From what I understand, The problem is that the writer does not receive his PRO money from the "play log" at the live performances. I agree that the PRO money is due, but the current tracking methods doesn't benefit the writer whose songs are performed at these live venues. You could make a case that the songs (tracked by current methods) are proportionally equivelent to the live "plays", but I remain unconvinced.

c,

And, unconvinced you should be. It's not at all proportionate to the actual live performance of songs.

Other countries track the songs with lists, I believe their PROs are administrated by their governments, many have one PRO per country. We here have three PROs registering songs, and collecting and distributing fees. That makes it difficult to register and sort out the songs perfomed all over the country on any given week.

Even if we had one PRO, I would confidently guess that we have far more total live music performances in one week than any other country. The task is immense and the expense of trying to accurately track them would eat up the money collected. Right now the money goes to songwriters who are statistically shown to have written popular songs.

Meanwhile, venues are lobbying to have the laws concerning the collection of fees for live music performance reduced or eliminated. I believe that if these laws are eliminated or reduced, and in the future the technology allows us to accurately track performances, those laws will not be reinstated and songwriters will not be paid.

That's why I say, as it is now, let the venues pay for live music even if it gets distributed to only a few songwriters. I'd rather see a few big songwriters get paid now than see many smaller songwriters not get paid in the future.

That's my case in a nutshell.

Mike


------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

Regarding school plays:

I know that Samuel French, a large publisher of stage plays, has catalogs that list the royalty fees for performing particular plays.

Many schools can not afford such fees, and
some schools disregard the fees and take their chances at being sued. But, I have known of schools ( and drama directors) that got sued for not paying the royalty fees for a musical...

Here's a quote from the Samuel French catalog:

"Samuel French acts as agent for a number of plays in manuscript form. Such plays are ontainable on the following basis: One manuscript per customer, bought outright, will be sent upon receipt of $..... plus $....for postage and handling...."( amounts vary)

Some plays are considered by Samuel French to be "Budget Plays." This means that
they are produced by amateurs for one stage performance only without the payment of royalies fees, provide that the rpoducer purchases a script for each member with speaking parts....However, in plays with more than 12 characters, they are not required to buy more than 12.

Interesting stuff - this is a great discussion....I have mixed feeling about this issue, because I have seen mnay different points of view, and because I'm a writer myself...well, you guys have already stated many of my concerns!

Emily

I have mixed views about it too, but Mike is exactly right, and Brian pointed this out too, if we don't defend these rights now, they may not be around when we write a popular song.

Graham,

Could you confirm or clarify your point shown below? I have about 9 songs registered with BMI, all collabs with others, most of whom use BMI as their PRO. And none of them have been recorded commercially (only on demos) and none of them are performed live that I'm aware of. If those were requirements to becoming a member, it never came up when I signed on with them. Just curious. -Greg

"Toward the point of being or not being a pro member, I say, anybody who has ever written a song should belong to a pro. (WHICH I DO)
yeah to do so it takes that song being sung in public or recorded commercially." (OH YEAH?)

Speaking from down here Greg, and from what I understand (and remember as it was a couple of years ago)from reading ASCAP condidtions while helping an Ohio Collab get signed up, up there your pros have full and associate members. The Full members have at least one song out on a public domain via live or commercial recording.
The associates do not.
APRA did away with associates years ago and you have to have at least one out there to get a look in at all.
I have heard enough of yours to know you have stuff that could quite easily be done live and surely there is a venue at hand you can get up and sing it so you can fill in the form and get them to sign where it asks for venue confeirmation for that first song.
Can't recall,what the differance twix full and associate is. Probably voting o issues etc.
Read your PRO conditions Greg. Am sure it will be in there.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

I have followed this thread with great interest. There have been some good points raised on many different veins of the topic, expressing various viewpoints.

I have contacted a staff member of a PRO myself and asked him to comment, as I am sure others have.

The fact that not one single, paid employee of any PRO has felt this thread, or the songwriters asking for answers deserved their time or consideration speaks volumss to me.

I am extremely disappointed in all of them.

dawg

[This message has been edited by greydog (edited 12-27-2003).]

I know the feeling, Dawg.
I think it is possible once there is too many questions they don't really want to answer come up, they mostly hope by ignoring it the issue will go away.
Not so. I am a bit cheesed of with the issue.
Mind you.
Mind you it is the festive time, and I know our APRA offices are either running short staff, or closed.
Good on ya Dawg.
I am sure a swag of members from all bodies make a noise, some of them will get the message.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm